“IntroductionPhyletic change, is best defined as “change with respect to time of characteristics of a species” (Bock, personal communication), is possibly the best documented aspect of evolution in the fossil record. (Simpson 1953, page 385)….

More recently, Eldridge (1971) and Eldridge and Gould (1972) have proposed as an alternative to evolution by “phyletic gradualism,” a concept of “punctuated equilibria,” which they believe to be more in keeping with the discontinuous nature of the fossil record. I agree with Eldridge and Gould…..”

Point 1His first sentence clearly states the best documented aspect of evolution is “ change with respect to time of characteristics of a species.

Are you not aware that this change is within a species.

I am not aware that anyone disagrees with this micro evolutionary change.Not even creationists as far as I am aware. May I encourage you to read what I have written, not what you think I have.

Point 2Kellogg clearly recognised this and that is why he in this paper agrees with Eldridge and Gould on their “proposal” of punctuated equilibra

So he doesn’t agree with gradualism but prefers punctuated equilibrium.

Again are you not aware that these are proposals or hypothesis and not fact as you have so confidently asserted

My interests are in three fields of study:1. Evolutionary Biology, particularly the tempo and mode of evolution. I pursue the long continuous records of siliceous microfossils in deep-sea sediment cores to test hypotheses about the rate and timing of morphologic change - is it continual, continuous, or episodic; what does that tell us about the nature of evolution at and above the species level? I am also interested in the more purely philosophical questions of species individuality, and the ethical implications of evolutionary biology…….

Notice he presents his hypothesis. Of course he is not sure whether change is continual, continuous, or episodic.

Now if you wish to present hypotheses as facts then may I suggest you get a clearer understanding of the meaning of terms used in science.

There I explained that there are different levels of information that govern cell processes.

The DNA coding resides at the lowest level and codes for protein.

Above that, is a level of information that differentiates into cell types that then have to be arranged into tissues.We don’t know where the information that controls this process resides.

Above that then, we have information that controls the arrangement of the tissues into organsWe we don’t know where that information resides.These organs then have to be arranged into body plans, the forms we see in life.Again ditto

Now these higher levels of organization go beyond the DNA level.In other words DNA does not control these higher order processes. DNA controls the form and expression of proteins.

This is why changes in DNA (however incurred) can only alter the protein level.Now Darwinian theory ( I have to assume that you subscribe to Darwinian theory) only deals with mutations to DNA.

Therefore you can mutate DNA as much as you like and no new forms of organisms will arise.

Quorum sensing is just another demonstration of the higher orders of information that control cell processes.

In fact it appears that the information being used is above even cell level.

You will have noticed that Bonnie Bassler explained that there is communication not just between bacteria of the same species but also between different species.

All this information is quite definitely not being controlled by DNA.

Therefore evolution theory of any description that is based on DNA modifications simply cannot account for the forms and communication levels we see in nature.

What makes these theories even more unrealistic,is that they are all firmly rooted in the notion of random modifications of DNA. Yet all over we see highly non-random structures. I have covered this is previous posts.

It is not my intention to destroy anyone’s belief. People have different belief systems and I feel they should be respected even if one disagrees with them.

The problem evolutionary theory has is that it is portrayed as a scientific fact, and has been made into a dogma that has to be obeyed. Anyone who dares to oppose it is branded some sort of a heretic.

So if something is portrayed as a scientific fact then it has to be shown to be so using known science. If it can’t be then it is simply another philosophy.

Clearly evolutional theory fails in this regard, as I have been trying to show over these past months.

The creationists are also entitled to believe whatever they want to and I also believe that their view should be respected.

However if they (and many of them do) claim that the universe was created in 6 24 hour days because the genesis account in the bible states that, then I have to take issue with that as well. There are other issues as well.

The genesis account says nothing of the kind and I suppose in due time I will be called on to prove it.

Now as regards the ID community. Well, while they have a lot of good science they call upon, I again find there is not a consistency in their composite view. I can go on to explain if asked, but I think this posting is long enough.

mcar wrote:I have thought if they're viruses but since you have said "phospholipids" my thought lead me to a true cell.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but aren't all known viruses parasitical? That is, they are basically reproductive molecules that require the use of another organism's host cells to replicate themselves. The virus takes over the cell's own DNA and causes it to replicate the virus instead. If that's so, then the first organisms couldn't very well have been viruses. Am I missing something?

Wikipedia describes a virus this way“Virus particles (known as virions) consist of two or three parts: the genetic material made from either DNA or RNA, long molecules that carry genetic information; a protein coat that protects these genes; and in some cases an envelope of lipids that surrounds the protein coat when they are outside a cell.”

QuestionHow is the protein manufactured? --- In a cell

Since a cell is required to manufacture protein, how on earth can anyone postulate that virus could have appeared before cells.

All this speculation is nothing but just that. There is no science behind all this.

The scientific merit of the Darwinian macro evolutionary account in all it’s forms, as the accumulating evidence shows is rather tenuous and unravelling rapidly. There is fierce resistance but that can only last so long.

What about the Genesis account, which is the other main view?

Firstly it is important to recognise that the account is presented as a historical narrative as Gen 2:4 clearly states.“ This is the history of the heavens and Earth in the DAY of their being created. in the DAY that God made earth and heaven.”

The word day (Hebrew yowm) is used 15 times in the account and it’s meaning varies depending on the context.

It varies from the distinction between light and darkness (night and day, i.e. roughly about 12 hours) to and unspecified creative period, finally to all the creative periods together, as the quote above clearly demonstrates.

Now the creationist (in particular the young earth) view is that the days mentioned in the account represent 24 hour periods.There is no internal evidence that this is so. In fact there is nothing in the account to warrant an understanding that these created days were literal 24 hour periods.

The 24 hour period for each creative day is clearly a dogma and not based on evidence.

However can any part of the account be analysed scientifically? The first 8 verses relating to Days 1 and 2 simply cannot.

However the process attributed to day 3 is interesting. Vrs 9 & 10 reads And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

Current scientific understanding does seem to support this statement.The evidence below shows that current science agrees that the landmass of the earth was all in one place in the past.

Finally showing your true color and answering to the question, you take the christian god for the creator.Would you provide evidence that the genesis account is the other main view. I seriously doubt that.

And how cute it is to see you cherry picking verse to shoehorn science in that view. So a few more questions:- Why Genesis 2, and not Genesis 1? Both chapters contain a creation myth.- But they are diffrent so I do you chose which is more true, considering that, as you handily provide evidence for (at least for Gen 2), the link with our scientific understanding of the creation of the earth is quite hmmm.... patchy, shall we say?- Do you know your Geology? And do you read your links? Because Pangea was not the first mega continent, and it is probably impossible to say waht the first continent or group thereof looked like.

But at least we can agree on something, your post on the origin of virus is correct. Since they are parasites and cannot self replicate, virus cannot be at the origin of life.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

But you are alive again so let me remind you that you still have not put to record which evolutionary account you subscribe to.Why are you finding it so difficult to respond to such a simple question?Well I am not going to hold my breath on any response on this.

However let me deal with your assertions one by one.

Finally showing your true color and answering to the question, you take the christian god for the creator.

(btw. my favourite colour is green, I have a suspicion yours will be gravitating toward red. )

First of all I was providing an answer to MY rhetorical question.

The genesis account refers to the God of the Hebrews, not to your so called “christian god”. A good piece of advice is to know your subject before you start making strong assertions.

Would you provide evidence that the genesis account is the other main view. I seriously doubt that.

No no be in no serious doubt at all.The creation view is most definitely the other main view of origins with the main creation account found in genesis.Why? here is the reason.Tell me do you attack with the same disparaging comments anyone espousing a different view from Darwin’s hypothesis but still positing a materialist stand? Ofcourse you don’t.

There could of course be a couple of reasons for this (a) you are not really sure what your own view is, which I suspect is the case since you are so reticent to put it to record. But also (b) it doesn’t really matter to you what is proposed so long as that view does not interfere with your philosophy. I have repeatedly made the point that these materialistic hypotheses are grounded in a philosophical view and not a scientific one. Prove me wrong.

Now just state quite clearly what your view is and the scientific basis for it and we can then examine the veracity of it.Don’t keep catcalling from the sidelines. It demeans you.

Why Genesis 2, and not Genesis 1? Both chapters contain a creation myth.

Because there is only one creation account in genesis.The creation account of chapter one ends in chapter 2:4.

Now before you go ahead and display any more lack of understanding on this subject I would advise you to get at least a smattering of knowledge of this matter.

- But they are diffrent so I do you chose which is more true, considering that, as you handily provide evidence for (at least for Gen 2), the link with our scientific understanding of the creation of the earth is quite hmmm.... patchy, shall we say?

Not quite sure what you are getting at here apart from the obvious sarcasm (which of course I am getting used to ) but let me try to educate you a little.

The original genesis account was an edited version from pre existing histories that were inscribed probably on clay tablets.

The chapter headings and verses we see in bibles today are the work of translators of the King James Version of 1611. They are not the originals.(there is a little bit more but I am not going to bore you with the details)

The genesis account is an edited version of 12 histories, each history concluding with the chapter and verses as follows.Chapter 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 36:4, 37:2 and the last 50:26.

Note please these are historical accounts. I am not cherry picking anything, but merely examining anything from the account that could be in accordance with known science.

So please read what I am actually writing not what you may wish it to be.

- Do you know your Geology? And do you read your links? Because Pangea was not the first mega continent, and it is probably impossible to say waht the first continent or group thereof looked like.

Yes I do know my geology, and yes again and I do read the links I provide.I suggest you read the USGS link properly.

First, you will not find that I used the word Pangea anywhere in my post.Secondly the name Pangea relates to the “Continental drift theory” not plate tectonics.

Now Patrick you are showing signs of desperation here.

Neither I nor the genesis account (1:1 to 2:4) mention any geographical names. A feature of the account is the fact that no geographical names are mentioned. Even the sun and moon are referred to as the greater and lesser lights. This suggests that the account was initially set down before any geographical names were invented. Geographical names first appear in Chapter 2:8.

Also the account and I make no mention of what the land mass looked like, simply that it was all in one place, just as the modern day view is, that is all.

Are you trying to introduce a red herring in an attempt to camouflage some interesting information?

Now there are a few more interesting little nuggets but I had better wait until you cool down a bit before I enrage you again.

I forgot to respond to your last comment regarding your agreement with me.

But at least we can agree on something, your post on the origin of virus is correct. Since they are parasites and cannot self replicate, virus cannot be at the origin of life.Patrick

Well actually I am not exactly in agreement with you here.

The virus could not predate the cell because it is essentially a protein shell housing some bits of nucleic acid (either DNA or RNA, depending on the virus) but not because it is a parasite which of course it is.

Protein could only come from a pre existing cell process.The cell had to have predated the protein because it contains the processes that make protein. So if we are to have common ground, and it’s nice to have some, I would like to be clear what that ground actually is.

Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules……

Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system.

Page 60

In water, the assembly of nucleosides from component sugars and nucleobases, the assembly of nucleotides from nucleosides and phosphate, and the assembly of oligonucleotides from nucleotides are all thermodynamically uphill in water.That is also true for polypeptide chains that join amino acids. Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored at any plausible concentrations: polypeptide chains spontaneously hydrolyze in water, yielding their constituent amino acids.

my emphasis

There is a lot of good and honest science being put forward here.What is it telling us?

Firstly -- There is no “plausible” route to complex biomolecules.

Secondly -- An external source of free energy is needed to form these compounds.In other words some outside agency is required.

Thirdly -- Clearly in water, either thermodynamically or chemically, biomolecules whether they are nucleotides or oligonucleotides or amino acids chains, cannot form spontaneously.

Yet Darwin and many others, like Stanley Miller and Harold Urey and many others have all posited and indeed continue to try to show that life could have spontaneously originated in water. All this in spite of science being against them.

When I have said that these hypotheses have no bases in science, even NASA agrees with me.

The cell had to predate the protein, there is no way around this in science.Philosophically, one may wish to hypothesize chemical processes that lead up to the formation of a cell, but scientifically they are implausible.

Origin of Life.Since no one is prepared to reveal what is their understanding of the processes that cause speciation other than simply state that, “evolution is a fact”, I will try and describe my understanding of what the consensus opinion appears to be.

Firstly How can Life be defined?

Here is a definition

Life is a system of chemicals that possess functional information (i.e.knowledge) in their molecules and a mechanism to implement that knowledge in such a way that the system can survive and replicate itself.

My understanding of the Molecular theory of evolution

Sections of DNA store information needed to make proteins. This is functional information (knowledge) and this is what constitutes a gene.This knowledge is passed from generation to generation by a process of replication.Chance or random errors during replication or other causes, create the potential to make new genes.These mutations may create new information or alter existing information.In either case nature preserves the beneficial mutations ( i.e. the knowledge to modify or make new proteins) by the process of natural selection, while the other mutations survive only by chance.Over millions of years changes in existing genes result in new genes and that is the way animals adapt and evolve.

The problem with this framework is that if an existing gene evolves into a new gene with a new function then the old function will be lost.Natural selection however will not allow that to happen, for obvious reasons.

So it was hypothesised that existing genes do not evolve into new genes unless the first gene is duplicated.This duplicate copy is now free to evolve while the first maintains its function.This theory has since been refined by further suggesting that pieces of genes may be duplicated and then rearranged to create new genes with new functions.

This is the theory that essentially explains the origin of many genes.

Remember all these mutations are chance (random)mutations that can only be filtered by natural selection if they have function, (i.e. they produce protein.)

Natural selection cannot act on any stretch of DNA unless it has a function that has produced a protein

Also remember that the cell is presumed to be in existence for this hypothesis to even get started.

Also this process is blind and has no foresight.

So the origin of the cell is unanswered and as we are now discovering there are no natural plausible pathways to the production of complex biochemical molecules.

I like that last post.At least it makes clear what we can agree and disagree on.Basically you got the gist of how genes do evolve, change multiply. I just would like to add that gene duplictaion is not the only way to create new genes. So genes can be fully acquired from another organism (but it need to have evolved there) by horizontal gene transfer, and some genes that become useless because e.g. the environment changed are not the subject of selective pressure and can evolve in interesting new ways. Plus there are genes that affect the regulation, the expression or even the folding of the protein. All that can drastically affect survival in certain conditions.But I digress, you seem to accept that all that is convincingly proved and that it can happen. Am I right?

So your biggest problem is not how can the information multiply and change over time, it is only it can appear in the first place. Your problem is not with evolutionper se, but with the creation of life.In which case Genesis 1 (I checked, it is in the first chapter, and you were right there is only one version of the creation of life on the earth, the 2 different stories in genesis 1 and 2 are about the creation of man), is not massively helpful either because it just tell us that it is so because of the word of god. Hmmmm... The science of the creation of life is much more complicated than that of the following evolution for a simple reason. Whatever the first self replicating organisms, or more likely molecules (Science's best bet is currently self replicating RNAs with catalytic activity, as those things can be observed), they did not leave traces to be analyzed, so it is as much a game of conjectures based on the current observed outcome and what we know about the primitive atmosphere's (and there is guesswork there) composition and conditions. A few hypothesis have been offered, but since the conditions are hard to replicate (who has a set of empty planets at the right position and a few billion years to observe the outcome? And even more importantly the funding to run the experiment? ) it will probably stay at least very informed guesses at best.But they are based on observation and fact. The problem with assuming a creator are multiple and honestly strong enough to make the hypothesis quite implausible. I will refer you to the very nicely written open letter of R. Dawkins to the Gov. Perry. because he writes so much better than I do:

R. Dawkins wrote:Darwin explained all of this with one brilliantly simple idea - natural selection, driving gradual evolution over immensities of geological time. His is a good theory because of the huge ratio of what it explains (all the complexity of life) divided by what it needs to assume (simply the nonrandom survival of hereditary information through many generations). The rival theory to explain the functional complexity of life - creationism - is about as bad a theory as has ever been proposed. What it postulates (an intelligent designer) is even more complex, even more statistically improbable than what it explains.

In my word: If one assume that information cannot arise spontaneously, which is what you do, then we have to assume that an original agent created the self replicating information. But that leave us with the problem of the origin of this first agent. It is just like panspermia, life may not have originated on earth (makes the game of informed guesses about the condition for the origin of life even more complicated), but the process for its creation somewhere else must have followed the same general rules. It is just moving the problem without providing any new information. So pray tell me, where does the original agent come from?This is not science, this is logic. In science when you are making an argument you have to demonstrate that it holds water. You can spend hours on the rest if your foundation is leaky, however beautifully crafted and built is the rest of the edifice, it will crash down. So will you finally answer my simple question? As long as you cannot even provide any clue, speculation or whatever beginning of information about that, all the rest is just wind. If you keep posting your long winded diatribes and ignoring that little fact, I will have to assume that there is no point in having a discussion with you. So, once again and very clearly: Where does the original agent come from?

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)